The high-profile visit of President Obama to our shores may not have attracted much attention in the American media, except from patronising reporting by a few East Coast broadsheets, but there was fairly extensive coverage in Europe and Britain. Equally pertinently, many analysts in East Asia also keenly followed the events in New Delhi last week.
During a visit to this part of the world just after the three-day Obama sojourn in New Delhi, it was interesting to see how observers reacted to the Indo-American entente. Admittedly, this may not be a truly representative sample of people and decision-makers in this region that this writer met, but it is as good a cross-section that one can hope for.
The first broad feedback that one received is one of admiration (occasionally tinged with envy) for the new kid on the block. For far too many decades, the two economic powers in this part of the world, Singapore and Hong Kong, not to mention Korea and Japan, have seen India as a poor country cousin, forever bumbling from one crisis to another. Our manifold problems were regarded as intractable and our national management capabilities were considered inadequate. Obviously, this doom-and-gloom viewpoint started changing from approximately the turn of the century. By 2000, India’s IT capabilities had started impressing the senior mandarins in this part of the world, both in the government departments as well as in the corporate corridors. For the first five to seven years in the new millennium, India’s impressive economic performance was also something that made people sit up and think.
Then came the wasted years from 2008 onwards, with the UPA regime lurching from one scandal to another. These years also saw most of the new policy initiatives going down the tubes. Therefore, there was relief and appreciation that the preponderantly poor and uneducated electorate gave such a resounding mandate to the new government in May 2014. The dance of Indian democracy certainly struck a chord among these hard-nosed observers in East Asia.
With the Obama visit, many people in this neck of the woods were openly impressed by the Indian penchant for putting up an immensely impressive and finely choreographed display of precision and power. The subtle nuances in the Indo-US interaction during the three days did not escape them either. The main focus, however, is on the way the two countries arrived at a modus vivendi that might well turn out to be a lasting milestone. The personal equation between the two leaders was evident to observers here, but there is also a broad consensus that India and the US have now identified common interests and options that extend beyond specific regimes.
The big-ticket items on the agenda like the consensus on the nuclear reactors issue have been under the spotlight. While analysts here stress the importance of this breakthrough, there have been some queries about the exact nature of the insurance fund that has been proposed to meet any liabilities that the equipment suppliers may face in the future. These concerns mirror those expressed by some political figures in India, but that is not important. What is being suggested is that any formula that seeks to allay the genuine worries of nuclear equipment suppliers in America must prove effective when it comes to the crunch. The litmus test should be applicable for the other side too; US equipment suppliers have also taken refuge under the umbrella of the liability threat for manufacturers of equipment, and if this issue is satisfactorily resolved, US investment in India’s nuclear power plants should materialise.
Understandably, overseas observers are more concerned with the critical issues that were worked out by the two sides rather than with specific industries, sectors and projects. IPR was definitely a core subject for India and the US, given the strong stand taken by the large international manufacturers of medicines and pharmaceutical drugs against India’s IPR regime. Before Obama’s arrival, many Indian analysts were also apprehensive that he would come with a long list of demands on behalf of MNC pharma companies.
The joint statement, however, barely covers this issue and skirts around it with aplomb. Para 19, under the ‘Economic Growth’ section, merely says both countries “reaffirmed the importance of providing transparent and predictable policy environments for fostering innovation”. Either the Indians managed to bury the issue or the Americans vowed to fight it out later.
On security issues and Pakistan, the feeling was that America had again side-tracked matters. Asking Pakistan to bring the 26/11 perpetrators to justice is surely a platitude, since the US resolutely refuses to hand over to India a leading member of this terrorist group. Finally, President Obama’s parting homily to India on the importance of religious harmony etc. got the requisite attention here, although this writer had to stress that it was gratuitously patronising and unnecessary.
Tangoing with a giant bear is clearly an acquired skill.
jay.bhattacharjee@gmail.com
The author is a corporate laws and business analyst, based in Delhi